R. Glenn Hubbard, chairman of the president's Council of
Economic Advisers, is preparing to leave the White House,
although no date has been set for his departure.

Hubbard, the architect of President Bush's $364 billion
proposal to slash taxes on investment dividends, was widely seen
as a rising star in Washington. But according to sources inside
and close to the administration, the Columbia University
economist was turned down in recent days for the position of
deputy Treasury secretary, the post he really wanted. The current
deputy, Kenneth W. Dam, has announced his departure.

Responding to a report of his departure in Thursday's Wall
Street Journal, Hubbard told reporters in Philadelphia yesterday,
"At some point I will [leave], but I don't want to comment on the
specific times. But obviously at some point -- I'm not a
lifer."

Hubbard's wife and two young sons have continued to live in
New York since Hubbard joined the White House economic team. His
wife, Constance Pond, acknowledged the strain that the commute
has placed on the family. But, she stressed, Hubbard has not said
when he would be returning to New York.

It will probably not be too much longer, however. In recent
days, senior White House officials have been interviewing
Hubbard's apparent successor, N. Gregory Mankiw, a Harvard
University economist. Like Hubbard, Mankiw is regarded as
something of a wunderkind in economic circles and is the author
of a noted economics textbook.

Mankiw is a protege of Martin S. Feldstein, an elder statesman
among conservative economists who has strongly influenced Bush's
economic policies. Critics of those policies have cited both
Mankiw's and Hubbard's textbooks to counter administration claims
that the growing federal budget deficit will do little harm to
the economy.

Sources close to Hubbard caution that it is not yet certain
where Hubbard will go.

Peter R. Fisher, undersecretary of the Treasury for domestic
finance, is hoping to take charge of the New York Federal Reserve
Bank, possibly leaving open a top spot at Treasury for Hubbard,
who has been eager to take a senior policymaking position. But
some Hubbard confidants said he would regard the undersecretary
position as a demotion from his current post. For months, they
added, Hubbard has been telling White House officials that he
would have to leave Washington to rejoin his family.

After seeing the Wall Street Journal report, White House
budget director Mitchell E. Daniels Jr. told the C-SPAN cable
television network, "Like me and a few others in this
administration, his family is still . . . in New York, and he and
I have talked many times about how wearisome it is to be away
from the family as much as that."

Commentary:
For months the media has said Bush is loyal and those who work
for him are loyal. Where? I don't see it. In fact, I see the
opposite. The word TITANIC enters my mind. Everyone is leaving
because they know this ship is sinking. Deputy Treasury Secretary
Kenneth Dam is expected to be the next to leave. What do they
know that we don't?

He doesn't look particularly fearsome, a bearded professor in
a pullover sweater and thick-soled shoes. He spends part of his
time preparing to teach Economics 101. He also writes a New York
Times column in which he repeatedly, loudly and unambiguously
calls the president of the United States a liar.

Paul Krugman says he just sort of stumbled into his role as
perhaps the harshest journalistic critic of the Bush
administration.

"I certainly am angry," he says in a quiet monotone that
doesn't quite match his rhetoric. "I just resent being lied to.
We've been lied to a lot, and I'm scared. I think we're talking
about levels of irresponsibility here that have real
consequences."

And why have few other commentators, even those as liberal as
Krugman, been so ferocious in denouncing George W. Bush?

"It's a very uncomfortable thing to question the honesty and
motives of your leaders," the Princeton academic says. "I'm
saying that the men who are controlling our destiny are lying.
Not many journalists or many people want to confront them. . . .
I probably have a bloody-mindedness that a longtime journalist
wouldn't."

To some, this makes Krugman, 49, an ideologue, a Democratic
partisan whose predictability is exceeded only by his shrillness.
"He's gotten very personal and vitriolic," says CNBC commentator
Lawrence Kudlow, a conservative economist who has tangled with
Krugman. "He doesn't really do any analysis and never lets on
that the other side might have a point. His economic credentials
have kind of evaporated, and he's become a left-wing political
spear carrier."

Liberals, meanwhile, see Krugman as their new champion. "He
goes completely against the cognoscenti," says James Carville,
the Democratic strategist and CNN talking head. "The average
dinner-party-guest editorial writer would say Bush has got some
faults, but he's a straight-talking, honest guy. Krugman is just
relentless in saying this guy lacks any honesty and integrity in
everything he does. He says Bush is a fraud, and he never stops
-- he says it over and over."

The Washington Monthly has pronounced Krugman "the most
important political columnist in America." To Editor &
Publisher, he is a "lightning rod" so electric that the magazine
named him columnist of the year.

"He's intense, certainly, and very, very smart," says Alan
Blinder, a fellow economics professor at Princeton and former
vice chairman of the Federal Reserve. "He feels he's on a crusade
for truth and justice. When I see him, he's always grousing about
the latest thing out of the White House."

What makes Krugman's rapid rise even more remarkable is that
he rarely ventures from his Ivy League enclave to either
Washington or New York and almost never talks to the people he is
writing about. An international trade expert, he merely
moonlights as a Times pontificator and is more worried at the
moment about finishing a new textbook, "Principles of
Economics."

Still, he churns out column after column with headlines like
"Clueless in Crawford," ripping Bush on Social Security, on
energy, on corporate reform, on tax cuts, on government secrecy,
on air pollution, portraying the president and his team as not
just wrong or misguided but deliberately deceptive.

Hasn't Bush done anything that would interrupt the drumbeat of
Krugman criticism?

"Very little has actually been accomplished, and just about
everything that has been accomplished I think was bad," he says
during a break at an economic conference in Washington at which
he is recruiting faculty for Princeton. "What do I do? Do I
stretch to find things that I approve of, which would basically
be dishonest, just for the sake of writing a favorable
column?"

What about the Democrats? Why has Krugman, a registered
Democrat, failed to take on a party that has been floundering
without a message?

Commentary:
The press continues to make goo-goo with Bush. His policies are
an utter failure, with deficits this year expected to be in
excess of $200 billion and likely to reach $300 billion. We
haven't had a failed president like this since Reagan (who
created more debt than all previous presidents in history
combined). The press loved Reagan as they love Bush. Why is that
do you think? Simple...the press is owned by corporations and
they got her taxes cut. Are they gin to bite the hand that feeds
them? Not a chance. So Bush gets a free ride and the rest of us
get to pick up the bill. Deficits equal future taxes plus
interest--when will the press and the republican party tell the
truth?

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Richard A. Clarke, a blunt-spoken White
House adviser who raised warnings about Islamic terrorism and
biological weapons years before they became nightmare headlines,
will resign from government soon, people familiar with his plans
said.

Clarke, the president's counterterrorism coordinator at the
time of the September 11, 2001 attacks, was disinclined to accept
a senior position in the new Homeland Security Department and
planned to retire after three decades with the government, these
people said. He has not yet solicited an outside job, they
said.

These people, working both inside and outside government,
spoke on condition of anonymity but said Clarke personally
described his plans to them. Clarke did not return telephone
calls from The Associated Press over three days.

Clarke, currently the nation's top cyber-security adviser, is
best known for his success in identifying emerging issues and
outlasting his critics. He has focused most recently on
preventing disruptions to important computer networks from
Internet attacks. But he has tempered warnings about a "digital
Pearl Harbor" after some industry experts mocked them as
overblown.

With much of the White House evacuated for safety in the hours
after the September 11 attacks, Clarke worked in the situation
room there with National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and
Vice President Dick Cheney as stunned leaders planned what to do
next. His supporters said Clarke played a central role in the
unprecedented decision to quickly ground the nation's
airliners.

Clarke previously led the government's secretive
Counterterrorism and Security Group, made up of senior officials
from the FBI, CIA, Justice Department and armed services, who met
several times each week to discuss foreign threats.

"It was really the engine room of the anti-terrorism effort,"
said Sandy Berger, Clinton's former national security adviser and
Clarke's former boss. "He's not an easy guy. He's very demanding.
More than once people would come to me and complain, but that's
why I wanted Dick in that job: He was pushing the
bureaucracy."

Clarke also had the ear of President Clinton about the risks
from a biological attack, years before anthrax poisoned the U.S.
mail.

"Dick was the single most effective person I worked with in
the federal government," said Jonathan M. Winer, a former deputy
assistant secretary of state. "When he was given the authority,
he would stay with something every day until it got done. He's
efficient and tough-minded. I never saw anyone else as good."

Clarke is known for his aggressive -- sometimes abrasive --
personality and for his willingness to bypass bureaucratic
channels. Under Clinton, he was known to contact Special Forces
and other military commanders in the field directly, irritating
the Joint Chiefs at the Pentagon.

Clarke was "a bulldog of a bureaucrat," wrote former national
security adviser Anthony Lake in a book two years ago. He said
Clarke has "a bluntness toward those at his level that has not
earned him universal affection."

Some senior CIA officials under Clinton complained that Clarke
pressed them to launch covert programs without adequate
preparation or study, said Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA
counterterrorism chief.

"He gave the impression he was somewhat of a cowboy,"
Cannistraro said. "There was no love lost between Clarke and the
CIA."

Clarke managed largely to avoid Washington's finger-pointing
over failures to anticipate the September 11 attacks, even though
he was the top counterterrorism adviser and he was replaced by
the White House in that role less than one month later.

"Dick in both the Clinton and Bush administrations was the
voice pushing this forward, calling out about the dangers," said
William Wechsler, a former director for transnational threats on
the National Security Council.

"There's an easy reason why no one is pointing the finger at
him."

The security council's director for counterterrorism under
Clinton, Daniel Benjamin, described Clarke as "a visionary in
terms of pushing hard to recognize the dangers of al Qaeda;
certainly the new administration should have attended to his
thoughts a little more."

Clarke already has submitted his resignation letter to the
president, one person said. Clarke is among the country's
longest-serving White House staffers, hired in 1992 from the
State Department to deal with threats from terrorism and
narcotics.

A spokeswoman, Tiffany Olson, said Clarke, who reports to Rice
and Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge, hasn't told White House
staff at the President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board
that he plans to leave.

Commentary:
I've included this article because the only thing Bush did that
was right on 9/11 was ground the airlines. It's too bad Clark's
name isn't known by every American. We can't guess how many lives
HIS idea saved.

Seattle, WA -- The U.S. District Court in Seattle last week
ordered the Bush administration to comply with a court order and
appoint an environmentalist to a federal committee that advises
the government on international trade in chemicals. The Bush
administration had rejected a nominee proposed by the
environmental community, instead appointing an academic with deep
industry ties to serve as the "environmental"
representative. The chemical panel, known as ISAC-3, is one of 17
sectoral advisory committees whose members shape U.S. policy and
have access to confidential trade texts and documents. This
ruling marks the third decision against the Bush administration
on trade issues since mid-December 2002.

"International commercial agreements like NAFTA and the
WTO have significant impacts on public health and the
environment. When U.S. trade policy is dictated by an advisory
board dominated by industry, those issues get short shrift. This
decision will help balance the playing field," said
Earthjustice attorney Patti Goldman.

Added Mary Bottari, director of Public Citizen's
Harmonization Project, "This is the third time in the past
month that a court was needed to check the outrageous and illegal
behavior of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). How many times must the USTR be told by federal courts
that closed-door decision-making must end?"

The ruling follows an action taken on Dec. 18 by attorneys at
Earthjustice, representing Public Citizen, the Washington Toxics
Coalition and the Asia Pacific Environmental Exchange, to protest
the appointment of Brian Mannix. The groups asked the court to
order the Bush administration to follow through on its commitment
made in prior litigation to appoint an environmentalist to the
23-member committee, which is already packed with chemical
industry executives. Mannix, a fellow at the Mercatus Center, a
conservative research center at George Mason University, had also
served as research director for the Manufacturers Alliance for
Productivity and Innovation and has often opposed regulatory
approaches to environmental problems.

The Court found that the appointment of Mannix fell short of
achieving the Federal Advisory Committee Act's (FACA)
requirement that appointments to federal advisory committees be
"fairly balanced in terms of the points of view
represented."

In her decision, Judge Barbara Rothstein said
that there is nothing to indicate that Mannix "has ever
been affiliated with any environmental group or ever advocated on
behalf of protecting the environment. The court is, therefore,
unpersuaded that Mr. Mannix's appointment provides a voice
for the environmental community on ISAC-3."

On June 29, 2001, at the groups' urging, Greenpeace USA
nominated Rick Hind, the legislative director for its toxics
campaign, for the position. On Dec. 16, 2002, 18 months after his
nomination, Hind received official notice that he would not be
appointed to the committee. Although Hind's nomination was
supported by a broad range of environmental organizations, the
USTR did not explain why he was not an acceptable candidate.
Mannix's appointment was announced Dec. 17, 2002.

The environmental community will now nominate a new member to
the Chemicals and Allied Products Advisory Committee.

This decision was the third ruling against the Bush
administration on trade in recent weeks:

On Jan. 16, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said that
the Bush administration violated federal environmental law by
opening the border to Mexico-domiciled trucks without first
reviewing the possible environmental impacts. The administration
had announced last November it was opening U.S. highways to
long-haul trucks from Mexico in order to comply with the North
American Free Trade Agreement. In this case, the 9th Circuit add:
"Although we agree with the importance of the United
States' compliance with its treaty obligations …
such compliance cannot come at the cost of violating United
States law." More
information.

Dec. 19, 2002, a U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.,
ordered the Bush administration to make public documents
revealing U.S. and foreign government positions in U.S.-Chile
trade negotiations with potential impacts on domestic public
health, labor and environmental laws. "From now on the
government can no longer negotiate in secret, hiding its actions
from the public until it's too late to change the terms of
the agreement. The court's decision will give the public
the information it needs to make sure the government is truly
negotiating in the people's interest," said Martin
Wagner of Earthjustice, who represented a coalition of
environmental and consumer groups in that case. More
information. LITIGATION FOR ADVISORY COMMITTEE FAIRNESS BEGAN
IN 1999.

This litigation began over the imbalance of environmental and
public health representatives on key trade advisory committees
and follows several lawsuits undertaken by Public Citizen in the
mid-1990s. The Trade Act of 1974 directs the USTR and the
Department of Commerce (DOC) to obtain advice and information
from a series of trade advisory committees on the administration
of U.S. trade policy, including negotiating objectives,
bargaining positions and the implementation and ongoing operation
of trade agreements.

Among the trade advisory committees organized and utilized by
the USTR and DOC are the Industry Sector Advisory Committees. The
mission of ISAC-3 on Chemicals and Allied Products encompasses
virtually all aspects of the development and implementation of
U.S. trade policy relating to chemicals, including specific
strategies and bargaining positions regarding regulation.

Nearly every member of ISAC-3 is either an executive of a
chemical or allied products company, such as DuPont, Eli Lilly
and 3M, or a representative of a chemical or allied products
trade association. Yet FACA requires agency heads and other
federal officials creating advisory committees to ensure that the
membership of the committee is balanced in terms of the points of
view represented. The Trade Act expressly provides that the FACA
fair balance requirement shall apply to all ISACs.

In April 2000, Public Citizen, the Washington Toxics Coalition
and the Asia Pacific Environmental Exchange sued the Clinton
administration in federal court to force some element of balance
on the chemicals committee. Patti Goldman of Earthjustice
represented the groups. Because the groups had been successful in
related suits, both the Clinton and Bush administrations agreed
to appoint an environmentalist rather than continue to litigate
the issue.

Commentary:
Bush is ordered by the Court to appoint an environmentalist as
required by a prior court ruling. He refuses. The only way this
president will follow the law is if someone forces him to. Bush
should be impeached for violating a court order.

When President Bush
traveled to the United Nations in September to make his case
against Iraq, he brought along a rare piece of evidence for what
he called Iraq's "continued appetite" for nuclear bombs. The
finding: Iraq had tried to buy thousands of high-strength
aluminum tubes, which Bush said were "used to enrich uranium for
a nuclear weapon."

Bush cited the aluminum tubes in his speech before the U.N.
General Assembly and in documents presented to U.N. leaders. Vice
President Cheney and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice
both repeated the claim, with Rice describing the tubes as "only
really suited for nuclear weapons programs."

It was by far the most prominent, detailed assertion by the
White House of recent Iraqi efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.
But according to government officials and weapons experts, the
claim now appears to be seriously in doubt.

After weeks of investigation, U.N. weapons
inspectors in Iraq are increasingly confident that the aluminum
tubes were never meant for enriching uranium, according to
officials familiar with the inspection process. The International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N.-chartered nuclear watchdog,
reported in a Jan. 8 preliminary assessment that the tubes were
"not directly suitable" for uranium enrichment but were
"consistent" with making ordinary artillery rockets -- a finding
that meshed with Iraq's official explanation for the tubes. New
evidence supporting that conclusion has been gathered in recent
weeks and will be presented to the U.N. Security Council in a
report due to be released on Monday, the officials said.

Moreover, there were clues from the beginning that should have
raised doubts about claims that the tubes were part of a secret
Iraqi nuclear weapons program, according to U.S. and
international experts on uranium enrichment. The quantity and
specifications of the tubes -- narrow, silver cylinders measuring
81 millimeters in diameter and about a meter in length -- made
them ill-suited to enrich uranium without extensive modification,
the experts said.

But they are a perfect fit for a well-documented 81mm
conventional rocket program in place for two decades. Iraq
imported the same aluminum tubes for rockets in the 1980s. The
new tubes it tried to purchase actually bear an inscription that
includes the word "rocket," according to one official who
examined them.

"It may be technically possible that the tubes could be used
to enrich uranium," said one expert familiar with the
investigation of Iraq's attempted acquisition. "But you'd have to
believe that Iraq deliberately ordered the wrong stock and
intended to spend a great deal of time and money reworking each
piece."

As the U.N. inspections continue, some weapons
experts said the aluminum tubes saga could undermine the
credibility of claims about Iraq's arsenal. To date, the Bush
administration has declined to release photos or other specific
evidence to bolster its contention that Iraq is actively seeking
to acquire new biological, chemical and nuclear arms, and the
means to deliver them.

The U.N. inspections earlier this month turned up 16 empty
chemical warheads for short-range, 122mm rockets. ,But inspectors said that so far they have found no
conclusive proof of a new Iraqi effort to acquire weapons of mass
destruction in searches of facilities that had been
identified as suspicious in U.S. and British intelligence
reports. U.N. officials contend that Iraq retains biological and
chemical weapons and components it acquired before the 1991
Persian Gulf War.

"If the U.S. government puts out bad information it runs a
risk of undermining the good information it possesses," said
David Albright, a former IAEA weapons inspector who has
investigated Iraq's past nuclear programs extensively.
"In this case, I fear that the information was
put out there for a short-term political goal: to convince people
that Saddam Hussein is close to acquiring nuclear
weapons."

The Bush administration, while acknowledging the IAEA's
findings on the aluminum tubes, has not retreated from its
earlier statements. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer reacted
to the IAEA's initial report on Jan. 8 by asserting that the case
was still open.

"It should be noted," Fleischer said, "that the attempted
acquisition of such tubes is prohibited under the United Nations
resolutions in any case." U.N. sanctions restrict Iraq's ability
to import "dual-use" items that potentially could be used for
weapons.

U.S. intelligence officials contend that the evidence, on
balance, still points to a secret uranium enrichment program,
although there is significant disagreement within the
intelligence services. Those supporting the nuclear theory said
they were influenced by "other intelligence" beyond the
specifications of the tubes themselves, according to one
intelligence official. He did not elaborate.

IAEA officials said the investigation of the tubes officially
remains open. Earlier this week, Iraq agreed to provide
inspectors with additional data about its intended use for the
tubes.

The controversy stems from a series of Iraqi attempts to
purchase large quantities -- thousands or tens of thousands -- of
high-strength aluminum tubes over the last two years. Apparently
none of the attempts succeeded, although in one instance in 2001
a shipment of more than 60,000 Chinese-made aluminum tubes made
it as far as Jordan before it was intercepted, according to
officials familiar with Iraq's procurement attempts.

Since then, the officials said, Iraq has made at least two
other attempts to acquire the tubes. The more recent attempts
involved private firms located in what was described only as a
"NATO country." In all, more than 120,000 of the tubes were
reportedly sought.

In each of the attempts, Iraq requested tubes made of an
aluminum alloy with precise dimensions and high tolerances for
heat and stress. To intelligence analysts, the requests had a
ring of familiarity: Iraq had imported aluminum tubes in the
1980s, although with different specifications and much larger
diameter, to build gas centrifuges -- fast-spinning machines used
in enriching uranium for nuclear weapons. Through a crash nuclear
program launched in 1990, Iraq succeeded in enriching nearly
enough uranium for one bomb before its plans were disrupted in
1991 by the start of the Gulf War, according to U.N. weapons
inspectors.

"A number of people argued that the tubes could not possibly
be used as artillery rockets because the specifications were so
precise. It would be a waste of dollars," said one knowledgeable
scientist.

Ultimately, the conclusion in the intelligence discussion was
that Iraq was planning to use the tubes in a nuclear program.
This view was favored by CIA analysts. However, there were
dissenting arguments by enrichment experts at the Energy
Department and officials at the State Department. What ultimately
swung the argument in favor of the nuclear theory was the
observation that Iraq had attempted to purchase aluminum tubes
with such precise specifications that it made other uses seem
unlikely, officials said.

By contrast, in Britain, the government of Prime Minister Tony
Blair said in a Sept. 24 white paper that there was "no
definitive intelligence" that the tubes were destined for a
nuclear program.

The tubes were made of an aluminum-zinc alloy known as
7000-series, which is used in a wide range of industrial
applications. But the dimensions and technical features, such as
metal thickness and surface coatings, made them an unlikely
choice for centrifuges, several nuclear experts said. Iraq used a
different aluminum alloy in its centrifuges in the 1980s before
switching to more advanced metals known as maraging steel and
carbon fibers, which are better suited for the task, the experts
said.

Significantly, there is no evidence so far that
Iraq sought other materials required for centrifuges, such as
motors, metal caps and special magnets, U.S. and international
officials said.

Bush's remarks about the aluminum tubes caused a stir at the
IAEA's headquarters in Vienna. Weapons experts at the agency had
also been monitoring Iraq's attempts to buy the aluminum but were
skeptical of arguments that the tubes had a nuclear purpose,
according to one official who spoke on the condition of
anonymity. The IAEA spent seven years in the 1990s documenting
and ultimately destroying all known vestiges of Iraq's nuclear
weapons program, including its gas centrifuges.

After returning to Iraq when weapons inspections resumed in
November, the IAEA made it a priority to sort out the conflicting
claims, according to officials familiar with the probe. In
December, the agency spent several days poring through files and
interviewing people involved in the attempted acquisition of the
tubes -- including officials at the company that supplied the
metal and managers of the Baghdad importing firm that apparently
had been set up as a front company to acquire special parts and
materials for Iraq's Ministry of Industry. According to informed
officials, the IAEA concluded Iraq had indeed been running a
secret procurement operation, but the intended beneficiary was
not Iraq's Atomic Energy Commission; rather, it was an
established army program to replace Iraq's aging arsenal of
conventional 81mm rockets, the type used in multiple rocket
launchers.

The explanation made sense for several reasons, they said. In
the 1980s, Iraq was known to have obtained a design for 81mm
rockets through reverse-engineering of munitions it had
previously purchased abroad. During the Iran-Iraq war, Iraqis
built tens of thousands of such rockets, using high-strength,
7000-series aluminum tubes it bought from foreign suppliers. U.N.
inspectors in the 1990s had allowed Iraq to retain a stockpile of
about 160,000 of the 81mm rockets, and an inspection of the
stockpile last month confirmed that the rockets still exist,
though now corroded after years of exposure in outdoor
depots.

By all appearances, the Iraqis were "trying to buy exact
replacements for those rockets," said Albright, the former IAEA
inspector.

Albright, now president of the Institute for Science and
International Security, a Washington research group, said that
even a less sinister explanation for the aluminum tubes did not
suggest Iraq is entirely innocent.

"But if Iraq does have a centrifuge program, it is
well-hidden, and it is important for us to come up with
information that will help us find it," Albright said. "This
incident discredits that effort at a time when we can least
afford it."

Commentary:
So here we have it. The entire excuse to go to war with Iraq, the
excuse to do inspections etc., was based on the false assumption
that these aluminum tubes were being used to make nukes. Bush
lied to the American people, the world and the UN General
Assembly.

France isn't with us anymore, neither is
Germany and Russia and China are siding with France and opposing
the US in the UN. Bush is in a pile of crap. He needs to
manufacture new evidence as quickly as possible so he can have
his war just like daddy.

Bush has disgraced the office of the
presidency by lying to us about national security and is
attempting to wage war based on those lies. For this he must be
impeached and removed from office.

Has it every occurred to the media that we
should have just a little proof before we go to war? Everytime
you hear one of those stores about going to war on your evening
news, ask yourself what Iraq has done to us. Ask what the proof
is, ask why Bush lied to you and ask why the press is pandering
to his war effort.

WASHINGTON –– A Christian activist chosen by the
White House for a presidential AIDS advisory panel is withdrawing
his name under pressure after characterizing the disease as the
"gay plague," along with other anti-homosexual statements.

The administration had chosen Jerry Thacker to serve on the
Presidential Advisory Commission on HIV and AIDS. He was to be
sworn in along with other new commission members next week by
Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson.

On Thursday, however, Thacker was sending a letter signaling
that he would not accept the appointment, administration
officials said.

"The views that he holds are far, far removed from what the
president believes," Fleischer said. "The president has a total
opposite view. ... The president's view is that people with AIDS
need to be treated with care, compassion."

The administration's choice of the Pennsylvania marketing
consultant had come under severe criticism from gay rights groups
and others. Thacker contracted the AIDS virus after his wife was
infected during a blood transfusion received during childbirth.
Their daughter also is HIV-positive.

Thacker, a graduate of Bob Jones University, is founder of the
Scepter Institute. At one point, his biography on the Scepter Web
site referred to AIDS as the "gay plague." It now calls AIDS a
"plague." Thacker has referred to gay people as practicing a
"deathstyle," rather than a lifestyle, and has described
homosexuality as a sin that can be cured by Christianity.

Like the Bush administration, he promotes abstinence from sex
as the way to prevent HIV infection. "For the unmarried, the only
truly 'safe sex' is not to have sex," Thacker has written.

He describes himself as an activist in the Christian
community.

In September 2001, Thacker returned to his alma mater to give
two "Chapel Messages." As once summarized on the university Web
site, the speeches focused on the "sin of homosexuality" and his
family's struggle with AIDS and its association with gays.

"Be compassionate to those caught up in this sinful
deathstyle. Let them know you care, but at the same time let them
know homosexuality is a sin. Most people find the homosexual
behavior vile and disgusting. Only when homosexuals know it is
sin can they repent," said the summary.

It also said: "Many people believe that AIDS is the judgment
of God on our nation, but Mr. Thacker believes that homosexuality
is the judgment of God on America."

The 35-member AIDS commission advises the White House on AIDS
prevention and treatment policy.

David Smith of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights
advocacy group, applauded the news that Thacker would not join
the panel but said Bush administration AIDS policies still fall
far short.

"While this is a positive development, the underlying problem
continues to remain with this administration's approach to HIV
and AIDS," Smith said. "They're obsessive focus on abstinence as
the solitary mechanism to prevent the transmission of HIV is not
based in sound science. They continue to come from an ideological
perspective as opposed to a scientific perspective."

Commentary:
To be a conservative must really suck, but to be a Conservative
Christian has got to suck even more, but what sucks more than
that? A Conservative Christian Homophobe!

Bush once said he wanted to bring us together.
Yeah right. Bring us together to kill and hate in the name of
religion and whatever version of god he has. This guy comes from
Bob Jones University, a racist institution. Thank god Bush never,
NEVER plays the race card.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 15 /U.S. Newswire/ -- "We are deeply
disappointed by the Secretary of Defense's disparaging remarks
last week regarding Vietnam War draftees. These remarks defame
the honorable and distinguished service of over 1.7 million
draftees during the Vietnam Era," Vietnam Veterans of America
national President Thomas H. Corey said today. "The Secretary's
comments are without foundation at best and insulting at
worst."

Corey was responding to remarks made Wednesday, Jan. 8, by
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that draftees added "no value,
no advantage, really, to the United States Armed Services over
any sustained period of time."

"Secretary Rumsfeld should know that the Vietnam War could not
have continued for 10 years without a military draft of honorable
Americans who accepted their military obligation as citizens of
this great country," Corey said. "The United States won every
military confrontation with the enemy in Vietnam, and that was
accomplished with the devoted and often heroic service of many
tens of thousands of draftees. Further, a system of military
conscription has been used in most of America's wars, including
World War II, World War I, and the Civil War."

Rumsfeld made his remarks in response to a call last week by
Congressman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) to reinstate the draft.

"More than 17,000 of the more than 58,000 men and women whose
names are on The Wall were draftees," Corey continued. "It is
wrong for anyone to demean their memories and insult their
families as the Secretary did last week. Similarly, it is wrong
to demean the hundreds of thousands of us who were wounded and
disabled as a result of our honorable service. Our service did
have value. Most of us went on to make significant contributions
to America in civilian life that are valued by our families, our
friends, our communities, and by most Americans."

"At a bare minimum, the Secretary owes an apology to the
families of those draftees whose names are inscribed on the
Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, and those who served
with them," Corey said.

------

Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) is the nation's only
congressionally chartered veterans service organization dedicated
to the needs of Vietnam-era veterans and their families. VVA's
founding principle is "Never again will one generation of
veterans abandon another."

Commentary:
What can I say? These people are beyond contempt. It doesn't
matter what you think about the Vietnam War, but to suggest "that
draftees added "no value, no advantage, really, to the United
States Armed Services over any sustained period of time," is
appalling. Rumsfeld was responding to questions about the
draft--should all Americans fight our wars, or just those who
volunteer? The quote above is his answer--no draft because
draftee's add no value.

Does giving ones body and soul to serve his
country count for anything to these power-hunger thugs? Ok, this
one has me really pissed off.

Update: Rumsfeld has apologized (if you want
to call it that)saying; "They added great value. I was commenting
on the loss of that value when they left the service." Some
people will believe that half-baked apology. Read his comments
again, then read what he said he meant. He's LYING again.

The public is skeptical about whether President Bush's new
economic stimulus plan will do much to help growth in the
economy, according to a new poll.

Only a third, 35 percent, say they expect the stimulus plan
will be fairly effective or very effective at helping the
economy. Another four in 10 said it could be "somewhat
effective."

The poll by NBC and The Wall Street Journal released Thursday
shows that the president's overall job approval is at 54 percent,
down from 62 percent a month ago. About four in 10 disapproved of
his handling of his job.

Several other recent polls have shown Bush's job approval
slipping into the 50s. Fewer than half support his handling of
the economy, 44 percent, and about half supported his handling of
foreign policy, 51 percent.

The poll results underscore the pressure on Bush to convince
Americans in his State of the Union address next week that he has
an effective plan to restore the economy and convince them on his
Iraq policy.

Bush still has a commanding lead over potential Democratic
rivals in head-to-head matchups, though that lead is
dwindling.

About a third, 32 percent, said their opinion of Bush's
performance has gotten worse in recent months, while 14 percent
said it has gotten better.

The poll of 1,025 adults was taken Jan. 19-21 and has an error
margin of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Commentary:
Do you feel sorry for Bush yet? His presidency is falling in
around him. What's he to do if he can't get his war going? He's
screwed and he knows it. According to International Law we can
attack Iraq only if the UN approves (not likely) or if we're
defending ourselves from attack or we've been attacked. Is there
anyone stupid enough to think Iraq is capable of attacking the
US?

The Letter

Hello,

I am quite inspired by the work you have done
compiling the wrongdoings of the dictator in chief we have here
in the United States. I have long believed that the Supreme Court
selected him due to the make up of the court due to Daddy
Bush.

I am beginning to fear writing such things
since I have some ‘inside' knowledge of the
technologies ‘Big Brother' is developing. A friend of
mine works for DARPA who is working on TIA systems. Soon we will
not be able to use the internet as we are doing now. We will be
like China {where I may end up working soon}. It is a shame, and
something we should remember and tell our children about... The
great dream of freedom of information, freedom of thought,
freedom of speech... All those things will be but a memory.

I don't really think there is a damn
thing we can do about it at this point. I am a victim of 9/11. My
brother worked for Cantor Fitzgerald on the 105th floor of tower
1. He was killed in a senseless act of terrorism, and the country
was plunged into a hellish nightmare, a ghost of it's
former greatness. The war in Afghanistan was a JOKE. We
didn't accomplish anything, but possibly chasing the
Taliban {not the real enemy anyway} back into the hills. We
killed many innocent people, and we are boasting about how
impressive our advanced bombs are. We are real losers in this
case, pretending to be victors.

What Bush has done to the economy, to the
environment, to the balance of class power, etc. is a disgrace. I
am baffled how the idiot was able to win {Oh yeah, he
didn't win...}. I am angry, disenfranchised, and torn.... I
am very much against the Iraq war... I am still asking why we
need to attack Iraq if the purpose is WMD when we know that Korea
already has them. There is no logic here.

So besides complaining, what can we do…
I will write my representative, and I live in California which
still is mostly Democratic and liberal, but I seriously doubt
anything will happen.

We must get used to it... The CONSTITUTION is
dead... It's been dead for a while Republicans have
battered it and kicked it... They have not had any respect for
it. I knew things were turning dark when he mysteriously was
selected by the courts. They didn't want a recount because
they knew that Gore would win. Why else? Then the repealing of
laws passed to protect workers, the push to drill Alaska {and
continue polluting the environment}, the pullout from Kyoto, the
relaxing of emission standards, the pandering to big business
like Enron...

Here is a conspiracy theory of my own. I
believe that the president and Enron head Ken Lay were plotting
to destroy Californias booming internet business in the mid to
late 2000's. Enron was in still secret meetings with the
Bush administration working on so-called "National Energy
Policy." Meanwhile here in CA, Enron was screwing the state by
manipulating prices in the market, making California pay as much
as 800% it was paying before. California is still messed up due
to the deals Gov Davis needed to make to nail prices down. After
the fact we find that collusion between several energy suppliers
caused immense damage to the CA economy. I think the Bushes
wanted to destroy Silicon Valley because only 1 in 6 people in
Silicon Valley voted republican. He only visited that important
valley once during his campaign. We wonder why so many companies
when bust, when they were paying through the nose for energy. I
sat through three rotating outages wondering why... They claimed
that there was not enough generating facility, but now we find
out that several plants were taken off-line to cause the demand
to shoot up... Very dastardly; just like the republicans.

When that was happening, our elected
representatives went to DC to ask the president for some
assistance. What the president said basically was "The free
market is more important than the people, you will pay what they
ask." We find out now that it wasn't ‘really' a
free market economy if the energy suppliers are colluding to
defraud.

I'm sure Bush is using his cronies to
screw other businesses to… His oil cronies are the ones
who are getting the payback.

Do you think we will get rid of the bastard? I
actually drove with a poster which read "GW BUSH SUCKS, Please
help get rid of the bastard!" on the back of my car for the 1st
four months of the idiots presidency. I really was hoping people
would see the man for what he is… Then 9/11 happened and
suddenly people liked him. I don't know what he did,
because whatever it was it didn't work on me. I still see
his ugly smirking face, his clueless smile, his unthought out
answers, and his evil nature. He talks about good and evil like
he thinks he is Solomon, but he is really Howdy Doody.

It makes me sick that my brothers death
brought this monster to power. I watched the peace protests and
thought that things might change. I am a bit upset at the amount
of "Pro-Palestinian" sentiment is associated with this. I myself
support our policy toward Israel, and being an American Jew I
believe that the Palestinians need to get terrorism under control
before they can come to the table to talk about the Palestinian
state. I support the establishment of the Palestinian state but
not at the expense of Israeli lives.